Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[rhorle]

What ? I specified your nationality because Americans tend to have to total capitalistic view on everything a.k.a if it makes money, it is good, as you demonstrated earlier. But no sorry, that is not how I view things. Or do you think the last Star Wars trilogy was good (despite being a success money-wise) ?

Again you indicate that nothing can ever be good or bad if things can't be measured. It is a meaningless designation that is applied only based on if you like something or not. Things you don't like are always bad. Things you like are always good. That isn't an opinion based on an reasoning at all. It has nothing to do with being Capitalistic, American, or any other thing you want to bring up to deflect.

- - - Updated - - -

The only one implying anything would determine good or bad is you, so you're literally arguing with yourself and projecting this back on to me for some odd reason.

So what is the value of a review if not to determine if something is good or bad? Lmao.

[Triceron]

So what is the value of a review if not to determine if something is good or bad? Lmao.

You don't find there being any value to expressing an opinion of a show unless it's only about determining it to be good or bad?

I mean, are you really that delusional? I thought you were here to discuss good, in depth discussion. Do you somehow think that all boils down to merely determining a show to be good or bad? You fucked your own argument with some blatantly ignorant nonsense here.

[rhorle]

You don't find there being any value to expressing an opinion of a show unless it's only about determining it to be good or bad?

Isn't the value in that it is indicating if the show is good or bad? What other value would it have?

[eschatological]

Why?
Critics can(and are being) be bought, along with "their" "opinions"
Audiences can(and are most often) biased one way or another.
I think choosing between sellout and bias is a no-brainer.

Again, there is no proof of this, and is just something paranoid conspiracy theorists say.

Do some studios try and limit access if you give bad reviews? Maybe, but that's not being bought and paid for - and once you get big enough that studios can't ignore you, you don't need to care about what the studio thinks. Whoever reviews movies for the NY Times doesn't give a shit about the ad buys the movie has made in their paper.

It's kind of like distrusting scientists as "stooges" during the pandemic. It's a disturbing trend among....well, easily duped rubes...who think all authority is suspect.

[Triceron]

Isn't the value in that it is indicating if the show is good or bad? What other value would it have?

Expressing what you like or didn't like. Expressing what you think worked and didn't work. Analysis of the various elements of the show that has been presented so far, like story telling, cinematography or sound work. There's plenty to value than a mere numerical value assessment of 'good or bad'.

[Kumorii]

The biggest value of any discussion is perspective and understanding opposing views... not winning or determining good or bad as absolutes.

[rhorle]

Expressing what you like or didn't like.

How is "Like" and "Didn't Like" not the same as "Good" or "Bad"? Lmao.

[Triceron]

How is "Like" and "Didn't Like" not the same as "Good" or "Bad"? Lmao.

That you think they are the same is the root of your fallacious argument.

An example is the movie the Room. People can like the movie, but it doesn't make it a good movie. People can like a bad movie. People can hate a good movie. There are key differences in what determines good or bad without it being a matter of preference.

There's plenty of cheesy 80's flicks that I look back on that I enjoyed thoroughly and have high nostalgia for that I would consider a mediocre or bad movie. Guilty pleasures like the live action He-man film or the live action Super Mario movie. By no means are these good movies, but I like them nonetheless.


There's quite a big difference between liking a movie and thinking a movie is good. More often than not, you would be inclined to like movies that you also consider to be good, but they're not the same thing. There's such things as guilty pleasures and acknowledging something to be bad, but still liking it. Such as a bad joke that makes you laugh because of it being so intentionally bad.

I think the best example I could think of is the show the Surreal Life, which was a Big Brother style reality show with B and C-list celebrities. It was a garbage show, and I enjoyed it because it was such a train wreck. I would never in my life consider this to be a 'Good' show. It wasn't even all that successful or rated highly. And that doesn't dampen any of my enjoyment of the series for what it was.

[rhorle]

An example is the movie the Room. People can like the movie, but it doesn't make it a good movie. People can like a bad movie. People can hate a good movie. There are key differences in what determines good or bad without it being a matter of preference.

So then wouldn't their review indicate they thought the movie was good because of the things they liked? Like and didn't like are the same exact thing as saying good or bad. There are no key differences between using good or like in a review. "It is good because X..." is no different then "The things I like are X...". They are both being used to determine if something is good or bad. It is the entire reason why review and ratings exist. To determine if something is good or bad.

[Triceron]

So then wouldn't their review indicate they thought the movie was good because of the things they liked? Like and didn't like are the same exact thing as saying good or bad. There are no key differences between using good or like in a review. "It is good because X..." is no different then "The things I like are X...". They are both being used to determine if something is good or bad. It is the entire reason why review and ratings exist. To determine if something is good or bad.

No, it wouldn't. That's why your assessment is ridiculous. Like and dislike aren't the same as good and bad.

But hey, keep digging that hole. Keep fueling the delusion that Rhorle thinks reviews are only valued for determining a show to be good or bad.

It is the entire reason why review and ratings exist. To determine if something is good or bad.

Ratings are goal driven to determine good or bad, I would agree.

I never once talked about ratings though. As I said, you took my comments out of context and implied that I was talking about ratings, when my entire argument was about the existence of legitimate 'non review-bomb' reviews provides plenty of perspective that the show's reception is mixed at best. I never talked about the ratings themselves in determining any good or bad value of the show. I merely made a point that reception is mixed.

And again, I literally point out that people should actually read the reviews and comments rather than merely dismiss them on the basis of numerical value, because it really is all about perspective. There's better ways of determining what reviews are legitimate or not than merely by its numerical value.

[Syegfryed]

As usual you make comments with nothing to back you up, we have reviews from critics rating the show high enough to be good, more ppl like the show than hate it thats a fact you have to just accept.

the critics are not the audience, the audience give a bad review, see RT as an example, its garbage and they are not liking it

[rhorle]

Ratings are goal driven to determine good or bad, I would agree.

Most places don't allow you to leave a review with out a rating. The review is to explain your rating. The two are linked so if one is to determine good or bad then so is the other.

[Mace]

Did tolkien ever write that elves couldn't be sneaky? Or that they were all beings of pure good morality? Didn't Tolkien specifically say that the difference between Elves and Humans was small?

Did you ever read Tolkien's description of the high elves? and the elves in general? Did you understand or can you grasp what sort of a people they are? There are somethings that Tolkien's race of elves would never do or behave like/

But then I have noticed that there are many people alive today in our bubbled societies that really don't know what terms like wise, noble or fair/righteous even mean, and don't know what they look like, but worse, don't care and don't want to know - yet they want to write on such things, and in their arrogance feel they know it all, yet know nothing.

[Triceron]

Most places don't allow you to leave a review with out a rating. The review is to explain your rating.

Right, and I never said 'focus on the ratings! Look at how terrible the show is!', so there's no reason for you to attack my comments on that point. You're accusing me of making points that I'm not even caring to make.

Like I said, you've taken the argument out of context, because I've been clear to illustrate the mere notion that not all low-scored reviews are review bombs.

You can look on RT right now and find some indepth paragraph explanations of the show with a 1-star review attached to them. To all the people merely dismissing the review because of its low rating would be disregarding a legitimate review in the process. Take time to sift through the reviews instead of merely jumping to a conclusion without taking any time to look into it. The show is clearly getting a mixed reception.

The two are linked so if one is to determine good or bad then so is the other.

I can't be blamed for an argument that you're projecting that I have zero intent on supporting. There is no intent in my argument to evaluate Rings of Power being good or bad through its ratings.

You could also accuse me of advertising Rotten Tomatoes by merely mentioning the site, and it'd be just as much of a pointless projection.

[Berkilak]

Did you ever read Tolkien's description of the high elves? and the elves in general? Did you understand or can you grasp what sort of a people they are? There are somethings that Tolkien's race of elves would never do or behave like/

I mean... Eöl existed. And Maeglin. Not to mention Fëanor, kin to Galadriel, and those who followed him. Not all Elves were the ephemeral enlightened beings you seem to be proposing. Not even the Vanyar.

And Galadriel herself is noted to be exceptionally prone to wanderlust, athleticism, and ambition. The focus on Sauron is new, but it is still completely in keeping with the Galadriel of the Second Age.

[rhorle]

Did you ever read Tolkien's description of the high elves? and the elves in general? Did you understand or can you grasp what sort of a people they are? There are somethings that Tolkien's race of elves would never do or behave like/

So people that steal boats and holy gems are somehow not "sneaky" or "duplicitous"? Didn't they ostracize ex-captives of Morgoth/Sauron? What about Maeglin who turned traitor in exchange for his crush as a "spoil of war"?

It is quite clear that Elves are capable of doing "bad" things for lack of a better all encompassing term and it has nothing to do with "modern politics" or "bubbled societies".

[kenn9530]

Which evidences ? Link plz.

Can you not look at some reviews, imbd for example its rated a 7.1 with far more ppl rating it highly than otherwise, if a large amount of ppl watch a series then its considered good, its pretty simple logic to follow. Some claim some games are bad but then those games with game of the year awards so its not the game that bad is it.

[Berkilak]

So people that steal boats and holy gems are somehow not "sneaky" or "duplicitous"? Didn't they ostracize ex-captives of Morgoth/Sauron? Maeglin turned traitor in exchange for his crush as a "spoil of war"?

It is quite clear that Elves are capable of doing "bad" things for lack of a better all encompassing term and it has nothing to do with "modern politics" or "bubbled societies".

Yep. The whole point of Galadriel "passing the test" when Frodo offers her the One Ring is to display her growth as a character. The Galadriel of the Second Age would have snatched that ring without hesitation in her ambition to rule over others. That moment wouldn't be significant if it didn't show that she was finally content and was able to overcome her prideful, ambitious nature.

[Specialka]

Can you not look at some reviews, imbd for example its rated a 7.1 with far more ppl rating it highly than otherwise, if a large amount of ppl watch a series then its considered good, its pretty simple logic to follow. Some claim some games are bad but then those games with game of the year awards so its not the game that bad is it.

Imdb is owned by Amazon, and they deleted a bunch of reviews (which were mostly review bombing as they were 0/10 and 1/10) but they let the 10/10 reviews (which are non sensical) which inflated the overall score. So do you have better evidences or is it just that ?

[kenn9530]

the critics are not the audience, the audience give a bad review, see RT as an example, its garbage and they are not liking it

Critics give a fair assesment without bias, thier review is the most relevant plus more of the actual audience rate the show highly also than not, RT is known to be the worst and least accurate so thats not going to help your case at all, IMBD has many thousands of actual reviews so you can use the data for a more accurate assesment. Reviews also have no real bearing on the actual show or movie anyway it just gives a rough guideline on how many like or dont like something and thats it.

- - - Updated - - -

Imdb is owned by Amazon, and they deleted a bunch of reviews (which were mostly review bombing as they were 0/10 and 1/10) but they let the 10/10 reviews (which are non sensical) which inflated the overall score. So do you have better evidences or is it just that ?

If you rate something a 1/10 then that is an obvious fake review and no they didnt just remove all of the low reviews, even the worst shows cant be considered a 1/10 so you dont have anything backing you up.